For decades, British roadsters had a spell on Americans. The rivalry between the MG and Triumph, the two leading exponents of the genre, was legendary. They each had loyal adherents to the respective marques, and the stiff competition kept the improvements coming, even if not exactly at breakneck pace. But by about the time this TR-6 first appeared in 1969, the race was essentially over: the new MGC was DOA, and the MGB was quickly slipping into its ossification period; meanwhile the Triumph reveled in its final incarnation of the classic formula: old school, but with a healthy kick of life in it yet.

The TR Series began with the 1953 TR-2. It must have been a bit of a shocker for MG, as it was significantly more powerful and of course vastly more modern looking than the pre-war styled MB TD and TF. The TRs were always a notch more powerful and expensive than the corresponding MGs, the TR-2 established not only the TR formula, but was the very basis for the whole series until the all-new TR-7 appeared in 1975. The TR-6 is a direct descendant of that hoary and rough-riding TR-2, including its old-school body-on-frame (BOF) construction.

After the TR2 wake-up call, MGs enjoyed a somewhat more vigorous rate of development, given that in 1953, the MG’s TD was still very nineteen-thirties in look and feel. MGs went through at least three major new platforms, and the MGB was a substantially more modern unibody design than the corresponding TR-4. Not that it made all that much much difference.

Triumph’s underdog status always led to creative and incremental solutions, and the TR range continued to evolve in ways that most directly addressed its most immediate shortcomings. The 1961 TR-4 had a handsome new body designed by Michelotti, and rack and pinon steering.

In 1965, the TR-4A was blessed with an independent rear suspension to tame the very much alive rear axle.

And in 1967, the TR-5, called TR-250 in the US, finally replaced the rude old four cylinder with a much smoother and lusty 2.5 L six. And yes, it’s true; the old four really was a design that was also used in a Ferguson tractor engine, for what its worth. The Brits liked a bit of sportiness while plowing the field.

The TR-5 is my personal favorite of the bunch (including the TR-6), since I’m rather fond of the earlier Michelotti design, which looked its best with the revised grille on the TR-5. With its 150hp fuel-injected engine (111 hp carb engine in in the US version TR250), it had quite brisk performance for its day, not to mention a lovely exhaust note. And with the overdrive, one had seven gears to play with. Triumph’s first sports car, the Roadster, was an attempt to compete with Jaguar’s XK series, at lower cost. The TR-5 and 6, with their six cylinders and more refined suspensions, finally approached that goal of a poor mans Jag.

Even though I’m not so hot about the TR-6’s styling, which was obviously a low-budget face and tail lift done with help from Karmann re-using the TR-4’s center section, it has its charms, especially if British Roadsters are one’s thing. It’s clearly the most vibrant, appealing and civilized of its era, given the how the MGB became such a pathetic thing, with its hippo-nose, jacked up suspension and feeble 77hp four. The TR-6’s arrival was embraced; the MGB’s decline could only be endured, at best.

The TR-6 appeared in 1969 with generally enthusiastic reviews, as the old TR magic was still to be found in the right settings. It was still old-school, but hardly ossified.

Since US bound TR-6s had a desmogged engine with only 104 hp to the British market’s 150 hp, acceleration in that era of Detroit muscle cars was hardly breathtaking. But it had a useful torque curve, and certainly sounded right, especially with the top down.

Ergonomically, the Triumph was obviously still old school: a narrow and cramped little cabin; getting in was more like sliding into a sleeping bag. But there was that handsome dash board (literally) to savor as a compensation to the lack of comforts. This car has an after-market burl-wood dash; the stock one was veneer on plywood.

The TR-6 was the best selling of the TR series so far, and some 95 k were made from ’69 through 1976. The fact that 86k of those were exported gives a pretty clear picture what the intended market for the TR-6 was. They might just as well have put the Stars and Stripes on its flank instead of the Union Jack.

The beginning of the end happened about the same time this TR-6 first appeared in 1969, and reflected the relative dynamic qualities of the two parent companies that had just merged to form British Leyland. The much smaller Leyland was essentially called on to bail out the moribund BMH (formerly BMC). Leyland was clearly the better managed of the two, but it quickly got bogged down in the mind boggling morass of over 100 companies that made up the new company, making everything from appliances to tractors (real ones, that is). Soon, the government would have to bail out the sinking conglomerate.

It was clear that Triumph, as part of the original Leyland would get preference over MG in the sports car segment, and an all-new TR-7 would soon see the (dismal) light of day as a replacement for the the TR-6. TR-6s like this obviously nicely restored one enjoy an enthusiastic following. Its engine is easily upgraded for more punch, and its ride is much less punishing than its predecessors. Just the ticket for as summer’s day drive into the mountains.

if you’re planning on putting together a 2015 Calendar, that final profile shot might make a good one for September. One last drive in the convertible before you stick it in the garage for the Winter, that’s what I’m thinking of. The car has such a purposeful look to it, with that tiny roofless body and those (comparatively) giant wheels and tires. Man, I really wish I had a TR6-sized spot in my budget right now.

Profile is where the TR6 perhaps looks best. I was never overly fond of the nose treatment as it seems less characterful than the TR4/5, but a profile shot really showcases the extension and reshaping of the tail section to great advantage, plus those large (for the time) wheels. And compared to an MGB, that six must feel like double the power…

I’ve had a TR3A, TR4 and a TR6 all in an attempt to get better weather protection and comfort. Admitidly the 6 had comfortable seats, but if I had to choose between the 3 it would be a the 3. It’s just so much more fun, especially since now it wouldn’t be my daily driver so screw weather protection. On the other hand I also had a MGB and while not as fast as the 6 it felt a lot more solid and that would be my choice today.

The change to the Vanguard 6 certainly livened these things up and boring it out to 2500cc wasnt a mistake it made the sedans and sports cars it was fitted to reasonably fast, some of the early cars went ok an ex GFs father had a TR3a with a shorrock supercharger fitted, that car was certainly no slouch. The only old MG with any get up and go was the MGA twincam but they were rare and fairly brittle

The 2500 wasn’t a bore job as the block was at its limit for that. What they did was redo the block and stroke the hell out of it: from 76mm for the 2000 to 95mm. The Vanguard engine still couldn’t breathe terribly well, which is why the carbureted 2500 didn’t have any more power than the smaller engine in the later GT6. The PI engine compensated by using a much hotter cam and then using the injection system to compensate, using the long intake runners and a rich mixture to pep up the low end.

I’ve never owned a Triumph, but I love them anyway. A TR2 or TR3 is far and away my first choice, followed by a Spitfire. The TR6, however, is undeniably handsome, and was really a fitting ending for a long line of tough little sports cars.

I feel similarly. Given what Karmann had to work with, I think they did a pretty good job of updating it. It’s a little like the Volvo 1800ES — the overall effect is generally pleasing, but if you look at it closer, it’s clear that there are still a lot of basically ’50s touches that clash with the new look.

Once Again, P. N. delivers a logical, well researched (and pictured) article tracing a car’s genealogy. An article that explains why the highlighted car is “special”, how it got to be where is it and why you and I should covet it.

In 1974 a friend of my father was looking to trade his 72 Spitfire for “something different”, so we swapped cars: my Vega Panel Express for the Spitfire…no money. I would eventually dump the Spitfire because I got tired of girls under the age of 14 calling it a cute car and wound up with a TR3A. Before trading for the Spitfire, I considered and even test drove a TR6, but at the time I was “upside down” on the Vega…I had only made a handful of payments. But I so wanted that pale yellow 72 TR6.

The narrow, upright body, wide track and balloon tires defined the look of these for me. I like the car more with the bumper pads than without, they add visual length and heft. Been years since I heard one in traffic, IIRC the transmissions are noisy. Great find Paul, love the color.

It’s probably lost in the “why do the British do anything?” ether, but could someone explain why the MGB had an up-to-date unit body and a front suspension with no ball joints and lever-action shocks? in 1962? Even the TR’s had those.

“Why change it?” From the beginning, MG was improvisational, using existing parts. Recall that the early MIdgets used SOHC Wolseley engines. If the rest of BMC had more state-of-the-art components, you can be sure MG would’ve as well.

When I was in grade and middle school (4-8th grades), our neighbor had a TR-4 and was the envy of all the Dads in the neighborhood. He would occasionally go out on a jaunt with my Dad (who were both into u-control model airplanes), and once or twice, I and a brother or his younger son got to sit on the retracted top (!) for a short ride perhaps up to the grade school ball field or whatnot.

I remember my Dad marveling at how far the footwell extended under the cowl (which Paul’s ‘sleeping bag’ comment reminded me of), and his pointing out the similarity when he bought the ’71 Vega that eventually became my first car.

A small clarification on the power outputs: The 104 hp rating for U.S. TR250s was a net figure (gross rating was 111 hp) while the 150 hp figure for the 2.5 PI was a gross rating. The net rating for the TR5 PI and early was 142 hp, reduced to 124 hp for 1973 thanks to a milder camshaft from the 2.5 PI sedan. It’s very confusing because I don’t think the U.K. brochures quoted power figures and a lot of British sources freely interchanged the gross and net ratings.

Triumph’s gross and net ratings for the TR4 were also very close — the TR4 was rated 105 hp gross, 100 hp net, and the TR4A was listed as 109 hp gross, 104 hp net. (I have no idea how Standard-Triumph was calculating those figures, but those were the factory ratings.) It’s no wonder the contemporary press was constantly confusing them.

I don’t know their methodology, but I wonder if they were doing something like Nash used to do. Nash’s power ratings (pre-AMC) were taken with open exhaust, but with accessories installed, so they were sort of hybrid ratings — not net ratings in the modern (or DIN) sense, but not the typical U.S. gross ratings, which basically ended up being more theoretical maxima than developed power.

I have always mixed feelings about the TR-6. I still remember the first one I saw. It left quite an impression. It was 1969 and I saw growling along on a city street in 2nd gear. I was a muscle-car kid, like everyone my age in those days. The TR-6 had that same kind of powerful, purposeful look, especially on tires I thought were huge for the size of the car. It was love at first sight. However, like most cases of love at first sight, it kind of faded when I finally got to know it well.

That was in 1978; I was the proud owner of a 74 Alfa Spider with 22,000 miles on it (a story for another day) and I became friends with the owner of a well-beaten TR-6. It was the first time I had ever gotten any seat time (even as a passenger) in one, and I was shocked at how crude and primitive it was compared to the Alfa. The Alfa had an all aluminum DOHC engine with mechanical fuel injection (that actually worked!) and a 5-speed. The TR-6 had lever shocks and Skinners Union carbs. The six was a great torquey engine but it only put out 104 HP to the Alfa’s 132, and you could tell. The TR-6, while admittedly old, run hard, and put away wet too often, always had something broken. The Alfa, contrary to the legend generated by people who confuse Alfas with Fiats, never gave me any problems. I only remember getting to ‘play sports cars’ with the owner of the TR-6 once. We made a run from Boise Idaho to Sun Valley, screaming through the mountains. He led for most of the trip, but he was working hard, while the Alfa followed easily. When we got to Sun Valley, he had a beer and a nap, and the girls and I had some white wine and strolled around.

The TR6 and Spider is an interesting comparison. The Spider’s bones weren’t a whole lot newer than the TR6’s (arguably less so if you start counting at the TR4A) and in some ways were less sophisticated — tthe Alfa didn’t have independent rear suspension, for example — but there’s a very different feel.

I don’t know how superior the SPICA injection really was to the Lucas Mk2 system. The latter had some oddities, but so did the SPICA. (Really, any mechanical injection system for street use was kind of like a Rube Goldberg contraption.) The big problem with both was that if anything went wrong, you needed an artiste to fix the thing.

As a side note, the TR6 didn’t have S.U. carbs. The U.S. TR6 and TR250 had Zenith-Stromberg 175CD carburetors.

I had a TR6 that went bloody hard ,the pick of a few i later bought and sold to make money.
When you get one that goes really well there is a lot of difference in performance, 100mph comes up very quickly .
Handling isn’t bad on smooth roads and is fast because of the amount of power available if you drive aggressively.
Makes a MG b seem very limp.

I only have one experience with the TR-6. When I was in the air force, 3 of us crammed into a guy’s British Racing Green 1971 TR-6 and drove to a friend’s place. A fun top-down ride! I also believe his was a 6 cylinder – it had power.

I liked the Triumph much better than the MG – they seemed to be a more substantial car, also a higher quality, real or imagined, but then it was almost new, so what did I know? In any event it was a larger car with more interior room, so that was a plus.

I always had a thing for Triumphs, the first old sports car I ever rode in was a friend of my old mans 1958 TR3, red roadster, around Sanibel/Captiva Island, I remember the cut down doors and how fast it “felt” even though we weren’t going fast at all. It was sort of like flying a little light airplane. I had older cousins that had a TR6 along with 5 other dead sports cars that they had on the front lawn of their house, the other cars included an MGB GT, Alfa-Duetto and hardtop E-Type, this was back in the early 80’s when these cars were all pretty cheap.

A TR-250 was my first car. Red, wire wheels, bought it in December 1969 when I was 17. Having a good handling car was a waste in Detroit, home of the 90 degree right angle turn controlled by a stop sign or light. But I found one spot, right hand sweeper that was posted at 35 mph. Going a little faster each time, finally got it up to 70 and then it would break into a 4 wheel drift. As long as I kept my foot in it, and some opposite lock, no problem. Had I been in the Bay Area back then, I probably would have killed myself with drifting thru the turns on some backwoods two lane.

Now one like that is a $30,000 car, and I can understand why it’s the most collectable of the 4’s and 6’s. Only made 8484 of them.

I LOVED TR6’s. I had two 74’s and one 76 (last yr?). The last was green with tan interior, AIR CONDITIONING ! and a hard and soft top. What I wouldn’t give to have the 76 again. Loved the styling the sports car handling and it was a blast to drive. I had Michelin red-line tires and it looked awesome. I thought it was a 6 cylinder – guess I was wrong. I had a mechanic that kept the two carbs running so smooth. I found the gear shift very stiff and my leg got a work out with the clutch !! I had to sell it a few years later (around 83) and a man flew from Miami to Tampa to drive it back – had a person waiting to buy it. I think the AC, hardtop had a lot to do with that and I got $4500.00 for it. It was expensive to keep up and I was told it was way to “old school” for wiring and engine parts and fixing. This had been my dream car and I loved it. If I had the money, I’d get one now. Thanks for the article, and photos.